The frightened, small-minded people have spoken...

Should've known the news would be bad when I saw that Nicky Morgan had called it for Remain in a BBC report just before I went to bed. But the then touted result of 52 remain, 48 leave turned out to be reversed, and we're on our way out. Cameron is toast, but not until October. I would've thought it would be better if he cleared off now, but a long drawn-out and hopefully humiliating exit could prove to be a fitting punishment for a failed leader. The demographics seem to suggest a lot of older voters went for leave, thereby doing over the futures of their children and grandchildren. Smart move; the coffin-dodgers put two fingers up to those who fight for the jobs that pay the tax which funds their pensions. That's interdependence for you - and that's what Gove et al are fully paid up and in thrall to, because globalisation and privatisation will continue apace. The deluded outers (particularly those who fell for the UKIP line, or the £350 million extra per week for the NHS) are in for a hell of a shock: you're going to see a lot of foreigners, but they won't be coming to work, no - they're coming to buy, buy, buy - your NHS, your workplace/pension provider - all at bargain basement prices, and without any of those troubling EU regulations. Some people are going to learn the very hard way that not all 'red tape' works against them.

George would really like to do a Trump

Here's a scary thought. After his failure to hide his lack of economic success behind a slogan-strewn Budget, Osborne seems to have set his sights on becoming Cameron's annointed successor. Forget financial probity and economic management skills (he plainly has), Budget 2016 was an attempt to push all the right buttons with those Tories who aren't yet unhinged enough to go with Boris, or those who aren't attracted to Mrs May's stern treatment. But - and this is the scary part - while Donald can (and hopefully will) be stopped by enough Americans voting for anyone but him in a full election, here Cameron's successor will only be chosen by the Tories themselves. British parties that change PMs mid-Parliament don't generally accede to the inevitable calls to let the country have a say - remember Brown/Blair? With the Tories, the end of the old and launch of the new tends to be even more brutal, as Thatcher's famously tear-stained last 'we' on leaving Downing Street showed. The question remains, will George be a blow in - and will we have any say in the matter whatsoever?

Johny Foreigner and the Spirit of the Blitz (Reversed)

Strange how we are so often told that the Blitz brought out the best in the British, how we refused to be cowed in the face of air attack on these islands, yet our Middle East policy is now - apparently - based on the total opposite. Could it be that Cameron actually believes, as per Mainwaring/Jones, that IS 'don't like it up 'em'? That, contrary to how the Brits took it on the chin from the Luftwaffe, that the assorted nasties ranged against us will crumble at the first rumble of RAF bombing? When Kenny Everett (yes, he was a Tory supporter, don't forget) put on his 'bomb the bastards' personna he was joking. But Cameron/Fallon and crew seem to have missed the punchline and enshrined the principle into foreign and 'defence' policy...

Oik or Oinky, it's grim up North, Dave

I look forward to Conservative Party conferences - being in government (in office, at least) they get to go last. Labour had a spectacularly good week down on the South Coast. But now Dave's Tory gang face a rather different prospect in Manchester - centre-piece of their much-vaunted Northern Powerhouse, lest we forget. Not only has their venture north led to a large part of the city centre being placed under something resembling a US-style 'lock-down', but delegates have reportedly been told to hide their conference passes while traversing the mean streets on their way to and from the Party jamboree. All this just four short months since Dave's less-than-overwhelming 12 seat majority general election 'victory'. If they're scared of the proles now, what are they going to be like in a few years' time?

Permanent parliament guaranteed: Dave's whopper of a lie to Scotland

I want to let you into a secret: Parliament cannot make a law that will last forever. In legal terms 'parliament cannot bind its successors' - which means that the next parliament can abolish everything its predecessor did and no-one can do a damn thing to stop it. All of which means that David Cameron's 'promise' to make it 'crystal clear' that the Scottish Parliament will be a forever thing might just as well be 'written in water' for all the good it will do. Politicians like promises, and Dave knows he hasn't delivered on the post-devolution referendum package that he, Clegg and Miliband made in the wake of last September's 'Yes' vote. But politicians also break promises - in the case of Cameron's Conservatives that list is long, and likely to get a lot longer. But his constitutional falsehoods need to be carefully considered: a promise or a guarantee to make an unchangeable law (entrenched law, as the lawyers call it) is simply beyond him. Countries with real, written constitutions make that sort of law - and the entrenched stuff can only be changed if the legislature (parliament and a a pre-determined majority of the electorate agree: that's real constitutionally entrenched law, Dave. And you and I both know that's the last thing your party would allow, because then the people really would be able to tell the politicians what to do.

Hammond - another grotesque in a cabinet of nasties

Last week we had 'floods' and 'swarms', now Hammond opts for marauding. When will the Tories stop pandering to the ravings of Murdoch, Desmond, Dacre  et al and show real political leadership? And that means cease the scapegoating and threats of inhumane  treatment, rather acknowledge that the West caused much of the unrest that has led to the refugee crisis and start to alleviate the suffering. http://gu.com/p/4bdx5?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Controlling Conservatives

The present crop of Tory leaders seem to have turned their collective back on their party's traditional reliance on the idea of individual liberty. This is particularly the case with their apparent growing willingness to tell the media, and country at large, what language they don't want to be used. First off, we had IDS and his acolytes bashing the Beeb over the bedroom tax, on the spurious grounds that he and Cameron preferred 'spare room subsidy'. Post Tory general election win, the rot has spread, with Gove telling his Ministry of Justice civil servants how to write (as a former journalist himself, he should know better...). Then we had Cameron lecturing the media about his dislike of the IS tag, on the grounds that the group is neither 'Islamic' nor a 'state'. As with the bedroom tax name debacle, the BBC (Charter renewal in the offing) cravenly capitulated to this bollocks. And now, suitably emboldened, IDS is back with his stated intention of changing the definition of 'child poverty' because he doesn't like the way it is covered in news reports and social media. This thought/news controlling tendency, which you'd have thought Tories would have run a mile from, due to its Soviet-style origins (and Orwellian overtones) also manifests itself in the ridiculous way some Tory politicians try to dispose of an argument by stating blithely that they 'don't recognise' some fact or set of statistics contrary to their own world-view (good examples of this dark art of thought-spin tend to fall most readily from the lips of Theresa May, when asked to comment on an opposing view). The supposed party of liberty has turned into a modern-manifestation of the stupid party, but mainstream media is dangerously accepting, when it should be ridiculing from the rooftops - it's the only way to drag Cameron and his cabinet of blinkered fantasist neo-cons back to anything that remotely resembles reality.

Voting to harm, with fingers crossed

At the time he sacked himself over Europe, John Major famously said he could trust the Parliamentary Conservative Party to re-elect him (notwithstanding that he'd labelled a number of the 'bastards', of course) because they were perhaps 'the most sophisticated electorate in the world' For those not around in 1994, he got back in, but the effects were so catastrophic that his party were turfed out of office in 1997 and it took them until last Thursday to win another election in their own name - even then, they only ended up with three more MPs than Major's final majority of nine when he lost office. If - and the evidence is slight - Tory MPs of 1994 vintage were sophisticated, a sizeable chunk of the 24% who voted them back into office last week are anything but. For example, who would vote for a party that told the electorate they were going to make swingeing cuts, but then refused - either in the manifesto or in debate - to reveal how much or where the reductions would be made: that's not a leap of faith, it's blind stupidity, placing trust in an arrogant group of politicians whose social class and family backgrounds are far removed from many who voted for them, or the people who will suffer most from the cuts. On justice, we now face a similar issue. For the second time, Cameron has appointed a non-lawyer to hold the Ministry of Justice/Lord Chancellor portfolio. But this time, the former-journo, Michael Gove, has been charged with fast-tracking the abolition of the Human Rights Act. In 100 days, we are told, the Daily Mail/Sun/Express-led charge against the European Convention on Human Rights (drafted by a Tory Home Secretary at the behest of Churchill no less), will be replaced by a British Bill of Rights, that will - in a reconditioned phrase stolen from 'new' Labour without a sense of irony 'bring rights home'. Except it won't. Before the 1998 Act, we had common law civil liberties, which were enforceable largely at the whim/pleasure of the judiciary, without a stable basis on statutory law. Voting for Cameron on Thursday looks to me, on the basis of these two examples, to be the most dangerous act of self-loathing by an ill-informed or highly partisan electorate that believes it won't ever suffer the misfortune of ill-health or job loss, that its pensions are large and secure, and that its rights can be entrusted to a Murdoch-beholden journalist turned right-wing neo-con politician. And they've inflicted this on the rest of us. Lemmings show more sense.

A Conservative canvasser calls...

Yesterday evening, resplendent with solicitous half-smile (think relief at passing wind) and blue rosette, 'pumped-up', as Cameron might put it. This was the day that the Tory candidate for Calder Valley, Craig Whittaker decided to retweet Richard Littlejohn's appallingly bad taste headline referring to Jimmy Savile as a babysitter in preference to a Labour government. Whittaker's poor judgement was even more astounding, given that in the last Parliament he had not only chaired the all-party group on looked-after children, but also founded a charity that has the aim of improving their educational achievement. The candidate, perhaps wisely, decided to go to ground, leaving his hapless bunch of canvassers to try and stem the UKIP tide - Whittaker's defending a 6,000 majority. As to loyalty, Whittaker can't be faulted - he's supported all government initiatives to the hilt, with a ringing endorsement of the benefit cap and bedroom tax. Indeed, his only rebellion was over same-sex marriage (which he defended on the rather strange ground that it could lead to polygamy!) The canvasser left my doorstep in no doubts that my household will not be supporting his candidate.

The Tory candidate, the sign and the land sale

Good to see that Craig Whittaker's team hasn't let the controversy over the sale of the former Lawson Road council offices deter them from putting his election posters on the site. However, it's to be hoped that the sale to Younger Homes has gone through - and that they've agreed to the signs being placed there, because if the sale has not yet completed, it would not be permitted for an election candidate to use council-owned land as the location for election material.

Major Mayhem

Woke this morning to see the Tories have drafted in John Major to assist their Labour/SNP panic-stoking project. Strange choice: while Major warns this could cause 'mayhem', older voters will well remember the rather sordid deals he cut with the Ulster Unionists to keep his own minority administration on the rails from 1992 until his landslide defeat in '97. Still, there is one sage piece of advice Cameron could take from this Conservative colossus: 'when you back's against the wall, you turn around and fight' quite... History best remembers Major-Balls (actual family name) for such bold initiatives as the cones' hotline and freeing up planning regs to allow for more motorway services (best not to mention rail privatisation - that happened on his watch, too.

Sanctions and church roof repairs

Jeremy Hardy joked that Osborne's Budget announcement of a £40 million Church Roof Repair Fund would at least mean that you'd be dry while queuing for the food bank. Given the Tory party's antipathy towards the current Anglican Church leadership's comments on poverty and social injustice, the fund smacks more of a desire to hold-on to a golden age that probably only existed in the era of the 'Tory Party at Prayer' gibe. Certainly, Osborne should find any attempt to buy favour receives short-shrift from those Church stalwarts who either volunteer at food banks or make regular cash or food donations to allow the vital work to continue. Getting a food parcel ready for someone who's turned up after being sanctioned by the DWP is enough to put anyone off voting Tory for life. And its good to see the Methodists aligning themselves very publicly with those who have been treated in this way by the present Coalition Government.

Patterson and Gove and the blobbies

First Gove derided one, now Patterson has blamed one for his ministerial demise. Both criticised 'blobs', environmental or educational establishment groupings that stood in the way of their pet theories. But delving into the alleged constituent parts of their respective blobs, a different picture tends to emerge. Take Patterson's Green Blob, where we find pressure groups - like Greenpeace and other lobby groups, the Green Party, and a vague identification of others opposed to Patterson's climate change beliefs. These aren't the dangerous elements he describes, but rather those concerned enough to take  stand against the arrogant/ignorant stance taken by ministers convinced as to the rightness of their cause, but lacking the empirical evidence for their frequently dogmatic assertions. It's not the blobs we should fear, rather the unchallengeable assertions of Tories with unshakeable views that don't stand up to reasoned argument. Bet IDS has a lot of blobs.